|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<TD id=INCREDITEXTREGION style="PADDING-RIGHT: 7px; PADDING-LEFT: 7px; FONT-SIZE: 12pt" vAlign=top
width="100%">
Sue,
I think Dent did some work on it and found that
the major Hump for retirement of Baby Boomers
is around 2009/2010 with a minor hiccup
in 2002. His ideas was that they were in accumulation
phase
2003 to 2009.
What he didn't factor in was that the 20 somethings would come
in
and sell all the baby boomers and their Fund Managers on InterNet
stocks,
make themselves rich and then send the InterNet companies down the
toilet.
A massive suck in - amusingly enough some of these companies used
Dent's
books (and ideas at seminars) to promote stock ownership in the baby
boomers.
A friend of mine is selling one of the best houses in our suburb
(beautiful waterfront)The only people who are in the running are late
20's who floated Inter Net Companies
that are now bust! You would normally expect older buyers for that
price range.There has been a massive wealth transfer. And you are
right the economy
may not be the same again for a few years.
Warmest
Regards
David
Hunt________________________________
<A
href="http://www.adest.com.au";>www.adest.com.au
Phone:
Australia: (02) 9527
4690
Int: +
61 2 9527 4690
<FONT
face=Verdana>
USA : + 1 312 577
0491_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
1Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 12:51:58 +1000From: sue crew <<A
href="mailto:screwy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>screwy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Subject:
Re: 10 Year Stock Market PerspectiveWhat about the ageing
population? In my mind this is what is going to keep the stock market
down for years.Bonds , Annuity income and low risk returns will be
king. Risk aversion and wealth protection are the key, notwealth
creation , particularly when we talk about the masses.InDJIA went
from 3,406.99 to 9,709.79 or up 185% annualized at
11.04%>>>>>>> Nas went from 589.93 to
1,562.56 or up 164.8% annualized at
10.23%>>>>>>> S&P 500 went from
414.59 to 1040.68 or up 151.01% annualized at
9.64%>>>>>>> Wilshire 500 went from
4,024.34 to 9,865.09 or up 145.14% annualized >>> at
9.38%>>>>>>> Inflation [CPI] went from
140.20 to 179.80 or up 28.25% annualized at >>>
2.52%>>>>>>> It is entirely within some
realm of possibility that the worst case >>> scenario on the
DJIA may play out but one must look at the odds. From >>>
studies I recall major bear markets can last up to 17 years and we
>>> have not had too many of those. Most recent bear markets
have been of >>> shorter duration as low as 9 months to 3
years.>>>>>>> When pessimism is that
great it is an extreme. There are 3 things I >>> have learned
that I think apply here.>>>>>>> 1. Do not
fight the Fed>>>>>>> 2. Do not fight the
trend>>>>>>> 3. Beware the crowd at
extremes.>>>>>>> I give credit to
Wachovia for the bulk of this
info.>>>>>>>
Sincerely,>>>>>>>
John>>>>>>>>To unsubscribe
from this group, send an email to:<A
href="mailto:>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx">>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to <A
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>>[This message contained
attachments]________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
2Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 05:12:44 -0000From: "bondo92677" <<A
href="mailto:bruce.larson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>bruce.larson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Subject:
Re: 10 Year Stock Market Perspective> >>> 1. Do not
fight the FedAll the monetary aggregates are significantly lower
since Dec 2001. > >>>> >> >>> 2.
Do not fight the trendThe trend is clearly down for the past 2 and
a half years. In fact the SPX and NDX haven't been this low since
1997. That's half of the 10 year pespective.>
>>>> >> >>> 3. Beware the crowd at
extremes.Everyone is still looking to buy. Although the VIX spiked
a bit, the put/calls really haven't done much. Are any of the high
profile gurus (Biggs, AJCohen, Galvin, Stack, Harding, etc) bearish
here? Nope.--- In <A
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxx,";>realtraders@xxxx, sue crew
<screwy@xxxx> wrote:> What about the ageing population? In my
mind this is what is going to > keep the stock market down for
years.> Bonds , Annuity income and low risk returns will be king.
Risk aversion > and wealth protection are the key, not>
wealth creation , particularly when we talk about the masses.>
> Infernal Elk wrote:> > >john, if you look at the
major averages since march 2000, you might> >say that we've
ALREADY been in a bear market for at least 2 years. so> >the
low end of the duration you cite (9 months) is already out of
the> >question.> >> >apart from reciting
a bunch of statistics, what are you saying here?> >what
"odds" are you referring to? what period(s) are you comparing>
>against? > >> >- *lk> >>
>> >>> I can not comment on the DJIA forecast but I do
know this:> >>>> >> >>> 6/3/92
to 6/3/02> >>>> >> >>> DJIA went
from 3,406.99 to 9,709.79 or up 185% annualized at 11.04%>
>>>> >> >>> Nas went from 589.93 to
1,562.56 or up 164.8% annualized at 10.23%>
>>>> >> >>> S&P 500 went from
414.59 to 1040.68 or up 151.01% annualized at 9.64%>
>>>> >> >>> Wilshire 500 went from
4,024.34 to 9,865.09 or up 145.14% annualized > >>> at
9.38%> >>>> >> >>> Inflation
[CPI] went from 140.20 to 179.80 or up 28.25% annualized at >
>>> 2.52%> >>>> >> >>>
It is entirely within some realm of possibility that the worst case
> >>> scenario on the DJIA may play out but one must look
at the odds. From > >>> studies I recall major bear
markets can last up to 17 years and we > >>> have not
had too many of those. Most recent bear markets have been of >
>>> shorter duration as low as 9 months to 3 years.>
>>>> >> >>> When pessimism is that
great it is an extreme. There are 3 things I > >>>
have learned that I think apply here.> >>>>
>> >>> 1. Do not fight the Fed>
>>>> >> >>> 2. Do not fight the
trend> >>>> >> >>> 3. Beware the
crowd at extremes.> >>>> >> >>>
I give credit to Wachovia for the bulk of this info.>
>>>> >> >>> Sincerely,>
>>>> >> >>> John>
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:>
>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxx> >> > >
>> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to <A
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >> >>
>________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
3Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 00:51:41 -0700From: BobsKC <<A
href="mailto:bobskc@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>bobskc@xxxxxxxxxxxx>Subject:
Re: 10 Year Stock Market Perspective[This message is not
in displayable
format]________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
4Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 23:12:56 -0700From: "Gary Funck" <<A
href="mailto:gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>Subject: RE:
10 Year Stock Market PerspectiveBob wrote (in part):With each
passing week, I see more and more truly good values in the
equitymarket but I still see many others which are priced far beyond
any reasonablecommon sense.Would you please name a few stocks
that you feel offer good value at this pointin time? I've read they're
out there, but when I look for them, it seems to methat the quality
stocks are still
expensive.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
5Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:02:42 -0400From: Daniel Goncharoff
<<A
href="mailto:thegonch@xxxxxxxxxx";>thegonch@xxxxxxxxxx>Subject:
Re: 10 Year Stock Market PerspectiveI don't think we can make a
bottom until the investing public identifiesan alternative to the
stock market. There is still too much latentoptimism to stock prices
for a real long term bottom to form. What do Imean by latent optimism?
A good example is the use of long term returnsin excess of fixed
income returns (ie, 'higher' equity-based returns) inthe assumptions
used by corporate pension funds. IOW, we don't hit along term bottom
until bonds are again seen as safer than stocks.The growing
federal deficit may help bring this to pass, as increasingdebt raises
LT interest rates while hurting corporate earnings.Another problem
in making a bottom in the US is the poor economicperformance in the
rest of the world. For all the excitement caused bythe return to
parity between the euro and the dollar, the reality herein Europe is
that the economy sucks. The situation here is much worsethan in the
US, with less flexibility to find a solution. The rest ofthe world is
providing little help, except maybe South Korea. The kindof scenario
we need to really bottom in the US is for a dramatic surgein
confidence in places like Turkey, Russia and China. Otherwise, toomuch
foreign money will stay invested here.JMHODanGBobsKC
wrote:> > Many of the 50-60 folks who are coming into
retirement have had most> of their savings chewed up by this bear
market and they won't give up> trying to get it back. For a 30 year
old, bonds could be a viable> solution but when you have 5 years
left to work and your retirement> has gone from $500K to $50K, you
will try to get it back and there are> two legal means to do that.
The markets and Vegas. Add to this the> current interest rate
returns and people are faced with less income> than the real
inflation rate. The excesses of the 90's are being> wrung out but
it isn't a fast process and it most certainly isn't a> painless
process. With each passing week, I see more and more truly> good
values in the equity market but I still see many others which are>
priced far beyond any reasonable common sense. All is doom and
gloom> now .. people are simply sick of the stock market. Shorters
are> thinking it can't end and fear is rampant. Not saying we are
at a> bottom but the signals are beginning to light up.>
> Good trading,> > Bob> > At 12:51 PM
7/13/2002 +1000, you wrote:> > > What about the ageing
population? In my mind this is what is going> > to keep the
stock market down for years.> > Bonds , Annuity income and low
risk returns will be king. Risk> > aversion and wealth
protection are the key, not> > wealth creation , particularly
when we talk about the masses.> >> > Infernal Elk
wrote:> >> >>> >> john, if you look at
the major averages since march 2000, you> >> might>
>> say that we've ALREADY been in a bear market for at least 2
years.> >> so> >> the low end of the duration
you cite (9 months) is already out of the> >>
question.> >>> >> apart from reciting a bunch of
statistics, what are you saying here?> >> what "odds" are you
referring to? what period(s) are you> >> comparing>
>> against?> >>> >> - *lk>
>>> >>> >>> >>
>>> >> >> I can not comment on the DJIA forecast
but I do know this:> >> >>> >>>
>> >>> >> >> 6/3/92 to 6/3/02>
>> >>> >>> >> >>>
>> >> DJIA went from 3,406.99 to 9,709.79 or up 185%
annualized at> >> >> 11.04%> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>> Nas went from 589.93 to 1,562.56 or up 164.8% annualized
at> >> >> 10.23%> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> >> >> S&P 500
went from 414.59 to 1040.68 or up 151.01%> >> >>
annualized at 9.64%> >> >>> >>>
>> >>> >> >> Wilshire 500 went from
4,024.34 to 9,865.09 or up 145.14%> >> >>
annualized> >> >> at 9.38%> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>> Inflation [CPI] went from 140.20 to 179.80 or up 28.25%>
>> >> annualized at> >> >> 2.52%>
>> >>> >>> >> >>>
>> >> It is entirely within some realm of possibility that the
worst> >> >> case> >> >> scenario on
the DJIA may play out but one must look at the odds.> >>
>> >From> >> >> studies I recall major bear
markets can last up to 17 years and we> >> >> have not
had too many of those. Most recent bear markets have been> >>
>> of> >> >> shorter duration as low as 9 months
to 3 years.> >> >>> >>> >>
>>> >> >> When pessimism is that great it is an
extreme. There are 3> >> >> things I> >>
>> have learned that I think apply here.> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>> 1. Do not fight the Fed> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> >> >> 2. Do not
fight the trend> >> >>> >>>
>> >>> >> >> 3. Beware the crowd at
extremes.> >> >>> >>> >>
>>> >> >> I give credit to Wachovia for the bulk
of this info.> >> >>> >>> >>
>>> >> >> Sincerely,> >>
>>> >>> >> >>> >>
>> John> >> >>> >>>
>>> >>> >> ------------------------ Yahoo!
Groups Sponsor> >>> >> To unsubscribe from this
group, send an email to:> >> <A
href="mailto:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>> >>> >> Your use of
Yahoo! Groups is subject to> >> <A
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
>>> >>> >>> >>>
>> >> > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor> >
[2692031.jpg]> > > Click here to find your contact
lenses!> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:> > <A
href="mailto:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is
subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.> >> >
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor> [Image]> Click here to find your
contact lenses!> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:> <A
href="mailto:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
6Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 08:25:23 -0600From: Charles Marchand
<c_r@xxxxxxxxx>Subject: Re:
10 Year Stock Market PerspectiveIn '74-'75 the NYSE ran sidebar
ads in Time and Newsweek with the caption "Anybody who would by stocks
now must be crazy...like a fox". At the bottom of the bar was a
grinning fox. When the exchanges are begging for business, we'll have
a bottom.All best,Charles MarchandAt 10:02 AM 7/13/2002 -0400,
you wrote:>I don't think we can make a bottom until the investing
public identifies>an alternative to the stock market. There is
still too much latent>optimism to stock prices for a real long term
bottom to form. What do I>mean by latent optimism? A good example
is the use of long term returns>in excess of fixed income returns
(ie, 'higher' equity-based returns) in>the assumptions used by
corporate pension funds. IOW, we don't hit a>long term bottom until
bonds are again seen as safer than stocks.>>The growing
federal deficit may help bring this to pass, as increasing>debt
raises LT interest rates while hurting corporate
earnings.>>Another problem in making a bottom in the US is
the poor economic>performance in the rest of the world. For all the
excitement caused by>the return to parity between the euro and the
dollar, the reality here>in Europe is that the economy sucks. The
situation here is much worse>than in the US, with less flexibility
to find a solution. The rest of>the world is providing little help,
except maybe South Korea. The kind>of scenario we need to really
bottom in the US is for a dramatic surge>in confidence in places
like Turkey, Russia and China. Otherwise, too>much foreign money
will stay invested
here.>>JMHO>DanG>________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
7Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:54:55 -0400 (EDT)From: John Cappello
<jvc689@xxxxxxx>Subject: 10
Year Stock Market PerspectiveBondo,Agree with all of the
comments made. It was inserted as part of the Wachovia source
disseratation in which no new committments were being made yet.The
source is heavily in bonds, cash and prior Blue Chip investments which
they expect to turn.While this is a more laborious bear, one would
be foolish to sell untainted sound companies which usually recover.
Such was the case for me in 1987. While there is little parallel
between then and now, I did well with covered calls and am doing the
same now in isolated cases.As a fact my commodity trading has
not been hit at all compared to my general portfolio. But there are
enough extremists out there that it is just a matter of time for a
turn. The Fed is OK and follow the trend [short for now where
indicated].Lastly, one of the worst ten year periods [not the
worst perhaps but bad enough]a mutual fund family I selected
demonstrated terrific resiliency on a ten year performance 1970 to
1980 withdrawing 7% per year and winding up with capital far greater
than initially
invested.Sincerely,John------------------
Reply Separator --------------------Originally From: "bondo92677"
<<A
href="mailto:bruce.larson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>bruce.larson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Subject:
Re: [RT] 10 Year Stock Market PerspectiveDate: 07/13/2002
05:12am> >>> 1. Do not fight the FedAll
the monetary aggregates are significantly lower since Dec 2001. >
>>>> >> >>> 2. Do not fight the
trendThe trend is clearly down for the past 2 and a half years. In
fact the SPX and NDX haven't been this low since 1997. That's half of
the 10 year pespective.> >>>> >>
>>> 3. Beware the crowd at extremes.Everyone is still
looking to buy. Although the VIX spiked a bit, the put/calls really
haven't done much. Are any of the high profile gurus (Biggs, AJCohen,
Galvin, Stack, Harding, etc) bearish here?
Nope.--- In <A
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxx,";>realtraders@xxxx, sue crew
<screwy@xxxx> wrote:> What about the ageing population? In my
mind this is what is going to > keep the stock market down for
years.> Bonds , Annuity income and low risk returns will be king.
Risk aversion > and wealth protection are the key, not>
wealth creation , particularly when we talk about the masses.>
> Infernal Elk wrote:> > >john, if you look at the
major averages since march 2000, you might> >say that we've
ALREADY been in a bear market for at least 2 years. so> >the
low end of the duration you cite (9 months) is already out of
the> >question.> >> >apart from reciting
a bunch of statistics, what are you saying here?> >what
"odds" are you referring to? what period(s) are you comparing>
>against? > >> >- *lk> >>
>> >>> I can not comment on the DJIA forecast but I do
know this:> >>>> >> >>> 6/3/92
to 6/3/02> >>>> >> >>> DJIA went
from 3,406.99 to 9,709.79 or up 185% annualized at 11.04%>
>>>> >> >>> Nas went from 589.93 to
1,562.56 or up 164.8% annualized at 10.23%>
>>>> >> >>> S&P 500 went from
414.59 to 1040.68 or up 151.01% annualized at 9.64%>
>>>> >> >>> Wilshire 500 went from
4,024.34 to 9,865.09 or up 145.14% annualized > >>> at
9.38%> >>>> >> >>> Inflation
[CPI] went from 140.20 to 179.80 or up 28.25% annualized at >
>>> 2.52%> >>>> >> >>>
It is entirely within some realm of possibility that the worst case
> >>> scenario on the DJIA may play out but one must look
at the odds. From > >>> studies I recall major bear
markets can last up to 17 years and we > >>> have not
had too many of those. Most recent bear markets have been of >
>>> shorter duration as low as 9 months to 3 years.>
>>>> >> >>> When pessimism is that
great it is an extreme. There are 3 things I > >>>
have learned that I think apply here.> >>>>
>> >>> 1. Do not fight the Fed>
>>>> >> >>> 2. Do not fight the
trend> >>>> >> >>> 3. Beware the
crowd at extremes.> >>>> >> >>>
I give credit to Wachovia for the bulk of this info.>
>>>> >> >>> Sincerely,>
>>>> >> >>> John>
>>>> >> >> >> >>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:>
>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxx> >> > >
>> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to <A
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> >> >>
>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~-->Save on REALTOR Fees<A
href="http://us.click.yahoo.com/Xw80LD/h1ZEAA/Ey.GAA/zMEolB/TM";>http://us.click.yahoo.com/Xw80LD/h1ZEAA/Ey.GAA/zMEolB/TM---------------------------------------------------------------------~->To
unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<A
href="mailto:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to <A
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
8Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:00:21 -0400 (EDT)From: John Cappello
<jvc689@xxxxxxx>Subject: 10
Year Stock Market Perspective[This message is not in
displayable
format]________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
9Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 11:40:41 EDTFrom: <A
href="mailto:xinos@xxxxxxx";>xinos@xxxxxxxSubject: Re: 10 Year
Stock Market PerspectiveDan,Been reading your comments for
quite a while. You are one of the few who seem to use simple common
sense re: the market.I've been a Magee/Edwards fan since the late
1960's, and a 'serious' stock investor for the past five years. During
the last five years, I have bought jillions of books, and dozens of
software programs. I experimented with Options and Stocks only.
Currently, the software programs I use are AIQ and Advanced Get. I
lean more heavily on AIQ.My holding period tendencies lean probably
more toward intermediate (two to six months) time-wise.Risk-wise,
I'm not afraid to 'let it all hang out!"I know this is a very private
and personal industry. I also know that noone in his right mind would
reveal to strangers what he worked very hard to achieve with his own
methods of investing. That is the reality of investing.However, since
you apparently make so much sense to my own way of thinking, perhaps
you can advise me as to your favorite:+ Software+ Books you
like/own.+ Publications you read daily/weekly.+ Any other
research/methods you would like to share.Please accept my thanks for
any info you can transfer to me. I can also understand if you're not
willing to share any of the above. It's ok. I can accept any
reluctance.Dan Nicholas; San Diego, Ca.[This message
contained
attachments]________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
10Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 12:19:16 -0400 (EDT)From: John Cappello
<jvc689@xxxxxxx>Subject:
Promised " Cappello" numbersThese numbers had to be slightly
modified in order to comply with Copyrite laws. The modification made
little change in performance when properly applied. The source for the
exact numbers is The Trader Handbook, if you are so inclined to search
its current availability and cost. No promise of performance is made
or implied.While decent, I was never able to duplicate the 67%
consistency in the manual which was based upon a small sample.Likewise
the calculations are similar to those used by many for Pivot points
and the like.First calculate Resistance :Level 5 =
Previous day high divided by previous day low multiplied by previous
day settletment.R5Level 4 = [Previous day high divided by previous
day low] plus 1 and that quantity divided by 2 and then multiplied by
previous day settlement. R4Level 3 = Same as Level 4 except
plus 3 and divide by 4. R3Level 2 = Same as Level 4 except plus 5
and divide by 6. R2Level 1 = Same as Level 4 except plus 10 and
divide by 11. R1Corresponding Support Calculations:Level 5
= R5 - previous day settlement= X5 then Previous day settlement - X5.
S5Level 4 = R4 - previous day settlement= X4 then Previous day
settlement - X4. S4Level 3 = R3 - previous day settlement= X3
then Previous day settlement - X3. S3Level 2 = R2 - previous
day settlement= X2 then Previous day settlement - X2. S2Level
1 = R1 - previous day settlement= X1 then Previous day settlement -X1.
S1Key Points also modified for legality and via my
observations.A. One will make a decision to day trade any future
contract purely on how its volatility was the day before.While this is
simply the difference between the high and low, there are volatility
point values that are given in the manual that I can not legally give
here. Needless to say you each can select high volatility days
intuitively in observing various heavily traded indices and
bonds.B. One usually uses Level 3 and 4 to trade. The other Levels
can come into play and experience will guide you.C. The market
must open between Level 3 R and S. One sells at Level 3 R and sets
stop at level 4. One buys at Level 3 S and sets stop at Level 4
S.D. There are many times when you can hit both sides of the
trade.E. If the market opens outside the range and then returns to
it, there is disgression whether you take the trade. I generally would
not since the Rule has been violated . Others think
differently.F. I generally use the number 10 as a break out
signal. That is if the market opens 10 points above Resistance 4 it is
a buy signal or if 10 points below Support 4 it is a sell signal.If
you observe it, you may choose what you thinks works.For
complete understanding, one should purchase the manual...but this
outline is a good idea on how they work and if you are even
interested.It took too much of my time to do this and various
programs I had attempted to have built were never pure to the rules
and
calculations.John________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
11Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 12:40:35 -0400From: Daniel Goncharoff
<<A
href="mailto:thegonch@xxxxxxxxxx";>thegonch@xxxxxxxxxx>Subject:
Re: 10 Year Stock Market Perspective<A
href="mailto:xinos@xxxxxxx";>xinos@xxxxxxx wrote:> >
Dan,> Been reading your comments for quite a while. You are one
of> the few who seem to use simple common sense re: the
market.If that is a compliment, then I humbly thank
you...> I've been a Magee/Edwards fan since the late 1960's,
and aOne heavy book, weight-wise, but worth the read.>
'serious' stock investor for the past five years. During the last>
five years, I have bought jillions of books, and dozens of
software> programs. I experimented with Options and Stocks only.
Currently,> the software programs I use are AIQ and Advanced Get. I
lean more> heavily on AIQ.> My holding period tendencies
lean probably more toward> intermediate (two to six months)
time-wise.Looks like you are investing rather than trading. Two
different kettlesof fish. (Where does that 'kettle of fish' phrase
come from anyway?!)Until recently, I never was able to trade
options successfully. Now thatoptions are fully electronic, I find I
can trade them, except close toexpiry, when my judgment goes haywire.
This week, I will close out Julyexpirys ASAP , and all new positions
will be in Augs.> Risk-wise, I'm not afraid to 'let it all hang
out!"> I know this is a very private and personal industry. I
also> know that noone in his right mind would reveal to strangers
what he> worked very hard to achieve with his own methods of
investing. That> is the reality of investing.I am glad you
said this. I would never reveal exactly how I trade here,if only
because I don't wish to be fodder for those who think knockingthe
contributions of others is the same as contributing themselves. I
amhappy to discuss trading 'from a distance'.> However,
since you apparently make so much sense to my own way> of thinking,
perhaps you can advise me as to your favorite:> + SoftwareI
use Real Tick for data. I look at about 35 stocks in detail
eachmorning. I like looking at all graphs, from ST intraday to weekly,
onone screen; it is hard to get too enthusiastic about a ST
buyingopportunity when the longer term charts are clearly negative.
Helps keepthings in perspective. Also, the longer charts are sources
for targetsfor shorter term trades.> + Books you
like/own.Frankly I have learned a lot more about trading from this
list,including from some ex-contributors that were forced off for no
betterreason than, apparently, a preference of some participants on
this listto censor people rather than use the delete key, than I ever
learnedfrom any book. The books that everyone should read
are:Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
(Mackay 1841)Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (Lefevre
1923)Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (Fisher 1958)If you
want something more contemporary, try ChangeWave Investing 2.0(Smith
2001)> + Publications you read daily/weekly.I am in
Europe, so I buy the FT two or three days a week, mainly for
thecompetition crossword. I subscribe to the WSJOnline, and read
Barronsevery week. (Not because Barrons is always right, but in a
world whereCNBC 'complains' they can't run negative stories because
they get hatemail, Barron's has no fear of being laughed at, or
threatened.) I usebriefing.com to keep up on what's moving the
market.> + Any other research/methods you would like to
share.In trading, it isn't how you play the game, it's whether you
win orlose.If you can't sleep at night because you're nervous,
your positions aretoo risky. If you can't sleep at night because
you're anxious, you'reprobably over-trading. Trade to win, but trade
to sleep.I think part of the secret is to find a technique that
suits you, andthen become an expert in it. Everything else is money
management.RegardsDanG> Please accept my thanks for
any info you can transfer to me. I> can also understand if you're
not willing to share any of the above.> It's ok. I can accept any
reluctance.> > Dan Nicholas; San Diego, Ca.> Yahoo!
Groups Sponsor> [Click here to visit our exclusive feature of
ACUVUE2 Colours at LensExpress.com!]> Click here to find your
contact lenses!> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an
email to:> <A
href="mailto:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
12Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 12:08:14 -0500From: "Shawn Jones2" <<A
href="mailto:shawnjones2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>shawnjones2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>Subject:
s&p 500 list of stocks with capitalizationAnyone know of a
list showing the 500 stocks of the s&p 500 and what percenteach
stock is currently contributing to the index. I've been able to find
alist with the top 10 but I'd like to go a little deeper say the top
50.thanks,shawn________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
13Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 10:21:02 -0700From: "Gary Funck" <<A
href="mailto:gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>Subject: RE:
s&p 500 list of stocks with capitalization>
-----Original Message-----> From: Shawn Jones2 [<A
href="mailto:shawnjones2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:shawnjones2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 10:08 AM> To: <A
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [RT] s&p 500 list of stocks with capitalization>
> > Anyone know of a list showing the 500 stocks of the
s&p 500 and what percent> each stock is currently contributing
to the index. I've been able to find a> list with the top 10 but
I'd like to go a little deeper say the top 50.> >
Here's a handy index component listing:<A
href="http://www.cboe.com/OptProd/index_comp.asp";>http://www.cboe.com/OptProd/index_comp.asp________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
14Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 13:27:36 -0400 (EDT)From: John Cappello
<jvc689@xxxxxxx>Subject: ]
s&p 500 list of stocks with capitalizationGary ,Good
link. Amazing to see GE constitute 3 % by weight. With it so far off
its highs, it is no wonder the S&P is struggling with everything
else.John------------------ Reply Separator
--------------------Originally From: "Gary Funck" <<A
href="mailto:gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>Subject: RE:
[RT] s&p 500 list of stocks with capitalizationDate: 07/13/2002
10:21am> -----Original Message-----> From:
Shawn Jones2 [<A
href="mailto:shawnjones2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx";>mailto:shawnjones2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]>
Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 10:08 AM> To: <A
href="mailto:realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [RT] s&p 500 list of stocks with capitalization>
> > Anyone know of a list showing the 500 stocks of the
s&p 500 and what percent> each stock is currently
contributing to the index. I've been able to find a> list with
the top 10 but I'd like to go a little deeper say the top 50.>
> Here's a handy index component listing:<A
href="http://www.cboe.com/OptProd/index_comp.asp";>http://www.cboe.com/OptProd/index_comp.asp------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->Save on REALTOR
Fees<A
href="http://us.click.yahoo.com/Xw80LD/h1ZEAA/Ey.GAA/zMEolB/TM";>http://us.click.yahoo.com/Xw80LD/h1ZEAA/Ey.GAA/zMEolB/TM---------------------------------------------------------------------~->To
unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<A
href="mailto:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to <A
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
15Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 14:24:58 -0400 (EDT)From: John Cappello
<jvc689@xxxxxxx>Subject: 10
Year Stock Market PerspectiveDear Gary,I can not speak for
Bob, but FSH and AD are just 2 of many 15 PE'sh stocks with average
annual income growth of 20% or more. I am sure a more specific screen
would show many more...though they are not in the
majority.John------------------ Reply Separator
--------------------Originally From: "Gary Funck" <<A
href="mailto:gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>Subject: RE:
[RT] 10 Year Stock Market PerspectiveDate: 07/12/2002
11:12pmBob wrote (in part):With each passing week, I see
more and more truly good values in the equitymarket but I still
see many others which are priced far beyond any reasonablecommon
sense.Would you please name a few stocks that you feel offer good
value at this pointin time? I've read they're out there, but when
I look for them, it seems to methat the quality stocks are still
expensive.------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
---------------------~-->Save on REALTOR Fees<A
href="http://us.click.yahoo.com/Xw80LD/h1ZEAA/Ey.GAA/zMEolB/TM";>http://us.click.yahoo.com/Xw80LD/h1ZEAA/Ey.GAA/zMEolB/TM---------------------------------------------------------------------~->To
unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<A
href="mailto:realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";>realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxYour
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to <A
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
16Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 19:25:45 -0000From: "IBe98765" <<A
href="mailto:ibe98765@xxxxxxxxx";>ibe98765@xxxxxxxxx>Subject:
Good article from Multex<A
href="http://dai.multexinvestor.com/article.asp?docid=9667";>http://dai.multexinvestor.com/article.asp?docid=9667The
Earnings Contrarian Out of the casino 2002-07-12 How to profit
from widespread misuse of earnings information by Marc H.
Gerstein, Director of Investment Research Visions and
revisionsBefore diving into the topic at hand--contrarian
approaches to earnings information--I have a confession to make: I'm
no seer. I can't tell you what any company will earn in the next
quarter or the next year. And I'm not alone. If analysts could really
foretell earnings, estimate revisions would be the exception, not the
rule. (Note that whatever I say regarding analysts' ability to
forecast applies equally to the corporate executives who guide them.)
But as of this writing, our database has current quarter earnings
estimates for 3,853 companies--and fully 84 percent of them have been
tweaked at least once over the past three months. So, in fact, changes
to earnings estimates are the rule, not the
exception.What analysis can tell usDespite my
limitations as a fortune teller, I can tell you confidently that next
month will be August. That's not a matter of knowing the future in
advance. It's an assumption based on what I know about the present and
past, including the fact that our culture agreed a long time ago that
we'd mark the passage of time according to specific conventions and
that at the end of the period we call July, a new period we agreed
would be called August will commence. The facts that underlie my
assumption are exceptionally stable; there's no advocacy whatsoever
for changing the way we mark time. That's why I can say, without
looking like a Cable TV psychic, that next month will be
August.We do something similar when we predict corporate
earnings--although the assumptions we use are far less stable. We
recognize that we can't know ahead of time what will happen. But we
can and do analyze the past and present in such a way as to enable us
to make reasonable assumptions about what will happen down the road. I
may look at a housing-related company and study the way ebbs and flows
of consumer spending, savings rates, mortgage rates, population etc.
have impacted its sales in the past. I could then say, given what we
expect from the indicators going forward, I predict the company will
generate revenues equal to such-and-such. It's not necessary that the
historic relationships be stable. I may note that over time, the
company is generating more revenue from a particular set of economic
conditions than it did when comparable conditions prevailed at
earlier points in time. That might lead me to forecast the company
will do better in this business cycle than in earlier ones.
Naturally, I can make expense-related assumptions by engaging in a
similar process. How much of a workforce has the company historically
needed to support a particular level of sales activity (and are these
relationship improving or deteriorating)? What is the inflation
picture? How much raw material is needed, and what cost issues are
observable?I may have a good handle on the facts upon which
these assumptions rest, so I may be confident in my forecast. But as
good as I might feel in such a situation, I know for sure that the
underlying facts are not nearly as stable as those which underlie my
assumption that next month will be August. How volatile are my facts?
That depends. For some companies in some industries, the volatility is
modest. For others, it's huge. (If you want to see how huge, send a
resume to a brokerage firm and tell them you want to be an airline
analyst. Even the living legend Warren Buffett once attributed a poor
airline investment to "a case of sloppy analysis.")Part of the
factual instability issue rests on the business cycle. Remember my
housing stock example. I mentioned a variety of economic indicators
I'd need to utilize. In fact, these are the end results of a different
sort of forecasting process engaged in by another profession,
economics. Economists will tell you it's a lot easier to forecast when
things are following a regular trend. But when the trend is abnormal,
as it is during downturns, it's very hard for them to get a confident
handle on the facts that underlie their assumptions.What
you're seeingMany in the market today are, or at least were,
spoiled. They got into it somewhere during the course of what was a
nearly 20-year bull market. We had some trend breaks along the way.
But on the whole, a certain set of trends was in place far more often
than it was out of place. So many got the idea that forecasting was
easy. Analysts were expected to predict earnings to the penny; if not,
something was badly wrong. Companies were expected to give perfectly
accurate guidance; if they didn't something was badly
wrong.Guess what. That was a fairy tale; a nice fairy tale, I'll
admit, and a pretty long one, but a fairy tale nonetheless. Now, we're
all getting hit with a harsh dose of reality. Forecasting earnings is
never a simple process, not for the analysts, nor for the executives
who guide them. Bull markets are great for making life look easier
than it really is. We had one for a long time. Now, we
don't.The result is that many are getting increasingly angry,
distressed, and downright frantic about all these negative surprises
and revisions. And many are reacting the only way they know how: by
selling stocks. The fact that some corporate insiders allegedly tried
to prolong the fairy tale with improper accounting adds to the
negative sentiment.It doesn't have to be this wayHere
is the most important thing you will ever learn about stock analysis.
You do not, I repeat, do not have to sell when earnings disappoint,
nor do you have to buy when earnings come in above
expectations.Company valuation is a complex and fascinating
topic and I touched on it in a series of articles last winter. (Visit
our Education Home Page to see links to these articles.) Earnings are,
of course, extremely important, but in all cases, we're talking about
a stream of earnings that persists over a prolonged period. And given
that we're talking about the great unknown, we recognized that
imprecision is inevitable (and discussed how models requiring
precision fell into disuse). Moreover, we're never talking about a
single quarter. And to the extent we label an earnings trend good,
bad, or neutral, you can bet we're not doing so based on whether the
numbers match analyst/company predictions.Business cycles can
be unpleasant. But like death and taxes, business cycles are a regular
part of life. We can prolong the good and minimize the bad, but the
world still has not found a way to abolish the cycle. This has a vital
implication for investors. Companies, even the best of companies, will
perform badly form time to time.The cycle isn't the only obstacle.
Sometimes, a company will perform badly, even though conditions are
good, because it makes a mistake. Yes, companies make business errors
from time to time, even the best of the best.If you seek
companies that never experience a bad spells and never give guidance
that turns out to be faulty, my advice is to stick CDs, because you
are going to wind up flitting about from one stock to the next never
finding what you want and continually selling low when reality rears
its head. And there's just so much of this you can do before you find
your portfolio getting dangerously close to zero. Before you buy a
stock, it's important that your level of conviction about the company
extend way beyond whether or not you think it can "hit its numbers"
over the next quarter or two. The misguided notion that companies
ought to always get it right--or be punished when they don't--stems
from an earnings momentum style that became increasingly prominent
after the 1960s. The idea was to buy shares of companies that are
doing well and avoid those that aren't. The system, although
theoretically ridiculous--it made no allowance for valuation--actually
worked very well for a long time. Shares of companies with good
earnings trends performed a bit better than the market averages, and
shares of companies with weak earnings momentum underperformed the
market. Investors who were good at figuring out which companies and/or
industries were likely to experience especially good or bad earnings
momentum tended to thrive.The system cracked in the late 1990s,
and has since crumbled under the weight of its own success. Too many
investors did the same things with the same stocks at the same time in
response to the same earnings news. Now, companies whose earnings are
weak don't see their shares "underperform." Instead, these shares are
trounced, stomped, and pilloried--to the point where valuations are so
far out of proportion to underlying fundamental merit that it would be
laughable if the pain of the style's ill-advised adherents weren't so
real, and wide-spread.That alone would be bad enough. But in
fact, today's reality is much worse. At first, the momentum game was
based on the most recently reported set of numbers. Then, as Wall
Street research departments grew in size and competence, the gem
turned its focus away from the recent numbers toward expectations for
the next set of results. And then, it really careened over the edge by
comparing earnings, less to the overall trend, and more to estimates.
Companies that do well see their shares get hammered if they do less
well than analysts expect. Companies with rotten numbers get rewarded
if their numbers are less dreadful than analysts feared. If this
strikes you as more of a casino (where you gain or lose chips
depending on whether earnings predictions are accurate or inaccurate)
than an investment market, I'd say you are correct.You can
succeedThe above may sound depressing. But if you think about it,
you can't buy low and sell high unless somebody out there is selling
low. (And you can't sell high unless you can find someone else willing
to buy high.)We're now in our quarterly earnings season, the
time when companies release earnings for the latest quarter. This is a
time when investors who play the casino game overreact to the things
they hear. (For the record, the numbers to be reported will, for the
most part, cover the quarter that ended 6/30/02. But most of the
action in the stocks will be based on guidance relating to the
upcoming 9/30/.02 period.) Considering where we are in the
business/market cycle, a lot of these overreactions are likely to be
on the down side. That means you're going to get a lot of chances to
buy low. And you'll often find yourself forced to decide whether or
not you should sell low. My suggestion: do the former, avoid the
latter.This does not mean you should naively buy or hold every
stock that gets hammered due to bad earnings news (or guidance). What
it means is that you should step back, take a deep breath, and do a
calm, objective analysis. If things feel too hectic on reporting day,
then wait a bit. Stock investing is far more contemplative than
Hollywood would have you believe. Pardon the pun, but you'd be amazed
at how often you can be burned by things that are hot off the press.
Cool down, then do your homework. By all means, pay attention
to the earnings information. But do not worry about whether it met or
exceeded expectations. Compare the earnings to the company's overall
fundamental picture, with an eye toward determining whether the
problem is transitory or potentially permanent. If the latter looks
like the case, then sell or avoid the shares. But if the situation is
just temporary, wait it out. I've seen all the nonsense about how it
takes a 100 percent gain to offset a 50 percent loss. Anybody who has
any reasonable level of experience in investing knows full well that
these supposedly rare 100 percent-plus recovery gains happen quite
often. All you have to do is peruse price charts to see it.If
you study analysts research reports, look for whether the theme is
"if" or "when." The dangerous situation is where the analyst has
serious reservations about the "if" question. But if the analyst is
bothered by issues of "when," that is an encouraging
signal.This is not a new or innovative way to use earnings
information. It's the way we're supposed to use it; as an updated
report card and a prompt to focus our attention on key bigger-picture
questions. The other, more common, way to use earnings data (as the
functional equivalent of a roulette ball falling into the slot that
tells you whether you won or lost your expectations wager) is the
aberration. Successful investors recognize the difference, and tend to
stick to the
basics.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Marc
H. Gerstein joined Market Guide in 1999 as Director of Investment
Research.He started working as an equity analyst in 1980 and
covered stocks spanning a wide variety of groups including Household
Products, Retail, Restaurant, Hotel/Gaming, Media, Natural Resources,
Homebuilding, Conglomerates, and Transportation. He also managed a
high-yield bond mutual fund and conducted seminars teaching investors
how to select stocks using screening
software.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
17Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 15:56:15 EDTFrom: <A
href="mailto:SLAWEKP@xxxxxxx";>SLAWEKP@xxxxxxxSubject: for Hurst
cycle loverscheck interview with Richard Mogey<A
href="http://www.marketviews.tv/";>http://www.marketviews.tv/________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
18Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 13:40:19 -0700From: "Gary Funck" <<A
href="mailto:gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>Subject: what
risk premium is "normal"?There's been a lot of discussion in
the press, and elsewhere regarding thispaper, penned by Arnott and
Bernstein.I was able to find it online via SSRN (570KB):<A
href="http://papers2.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery.taf?24038&_UserReference=FB534036A2488C79";>http://papers2.ssrn.com/sol3/delivery.taf?24038&_UserReference=FB534036A2488C793D3084F9SSRN
has a wealth of info, if only I had time to read it all. :)I find
it interesting that only now these valuation articles are coming out
inthe refereed journals. Some of the articles that I've seen were
authored in2000!, but are filtering out only now. With the market
down, I guess it is moresocially
acceptable----------------------------------What Risk
Premium Is "Normal"?Robert D. ArnottManaging PartnerFirst
Quadrant, L.P.Peter L. BernsteinPresident of Peter L. Bernstein,
Inc.Consulting Editor at The Journal of Portfolio
ManagementIntroductionWe are in an industry that
thrives on the expedient of forecasting the futurebyextrapolating
the past. As a consequence, investors have grown accustomed tothe
ideathat stocks "normally" produce an 8% real return and a 5% risk
premium overbonds,compounded annually over many decades.1 Why?
Because long-term historicalreturnshave been in this range, with
impressive consistency. Because investors seethese samelong-term
historical numbers, year after year, these expectations are
nowembedded intothe collective psyche of the investment
community.2Both figures are unrealistic from current market levels.
Few have acknowledgedthat animportant part of the lofty real
returns of the past has stemmed from risingvaluationlevels and
from high dividend yields which have since diminished. As thisarticle
willdemonstrate, the long-term forward-looking risk premium is nowhere
near the 5%of thepast; indeed, it may well be near-zero today,
perhaps even negative. Crediblestudies, inthe US and overseas, are
now challenging this flawed conventional view,
inwellresearchedstudies by Claus and Thomas [2001] and Fama and
French [2000, WorkingPaper], to name just two. 3 Similarly, the
long-term forward-looking realreturn fromstocks is nowhere near
history's 8%. Our argument will show that, barringunprecedented
economic growth or unprecedented growth in earnings as apercentage
ofthe economy, real stock returns will probably be roughly 2-4%,
similar tobonds. Indeed,even this low real return figure assumes
that current near-record valuationlevels are"fair," and likely to
remain this high in the years ahead. "Reversion to themean"
wouldpush future real returns lower still.Furthermore, if we
examine the historical record, neither the 8% real returnnor the
5%risk premium for stocks relative to government bonds has ever been a
realisticexpectation, except from major market bottoms or at times of
crisis, such aswartime.Should investors require an 8% real return,
or should a 5% risk premium benecessary toinduce an investor to
bear stock market risk? These returns and risk premiumsare sogrand
that investors should perhaps have bid them away a long time ago
-indeed, theymay have done so in the immense bull market of
1982-1999.Intuition suggests that investors should not require such
outsize returns, andthe historicalevidence supports this view.
This is a topic meriting careful exploration.After all,according
to the Ibbotson data, stock market investors earned 8% real returnsand
stockshave outpaced bonds by over 5% over the past 75 years. So, why
shouldn'tinvestorshave expected these returns in the past and why
shouldn't they continue to doso?Expressed in a slightly different
way, we examine two questions. First, can wederive anobjective
estimate of what investors should have had good reasons to
haveexpected inthe past? And, why should we expect less in the
future than we've earned in thepast?[...][This message
contained
attachments]________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Message:
19Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 13:44:14 -0700From: "Gary Funck" <<A
href="mailto:gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx";>gary@xxxxxxxxxxxx>Subject: RE:
what risk premium is "normal"?Sorry about that 500K attachment. I
meant to remove it but
forgot.________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Your
use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to <A
href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/";>http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
.
<SPAN
id=IncrediStamp><FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif"
size=2>____________________________________________________<FONT
face="Comic Sans MS" size=2><A
href="http://www.incredimail.com/redir.asp?ad_id=309&lang=9";><IMG alt=""
hspace=0 src="gif00745.gif" align=baseline
border=0> IncrediMail - Email has finally evolved -
<FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>Click
Here
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Click here to find your contact lenses!
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
realtraders-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Attachment:
Description: ""
Attachment:
Description: ""
Attachment:
Description: "Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service."
Attachment:
Description: ""
|